OCC issues final stablecoin rules: January start, with no blanket permission for rewards

According to the OCC's final-rule bulletin (Opens in a new tab), this completes a rulemaking process rather than presenting another proposal for public comment. Publication does not, however, bring forward the effective date. The distinction matters: a rule can be final in October while its obligations begin at a later date.

The framework concerns issuers and the ability to redeem coins

The GENIUS Act, enacted on 18 July 2025, created a US framework for payment stablecoins. The new rules focus on permitted issuers subject to the OCC, foreign issuers within its jurisdiction and certain custody activities at entities it supervises. The announcement should therefore not be read as single-handedly regulating every digital currency or crypto service in the United States.

Requirements include reserves, risk management, auditing and reporting, alongside licensing and registration applications. Behind that list lies a useful distinction: transferring units across a network is one action; the issuer's ability to meet its financial obligation is another matter. Transfer speed alone does not explain which assets stand behind it or how redemption works.

The text requires identified reserves segregated from other assets, with a value no lower than the value of issued coins not yet redeemed. Permitted assets include US cash, eligible deposits and US Treasury securities with up to 93 days remaining to maturity, subject to the rules' conditions. Issuers must also have the operational ability to liquidate reserves for redemptions in normal and stressed conditions.

A reserve is the asset backing the issuer's obligation; redemption turns that obligation into payment to the holder. To understand their relationship, start with the explanation of stablecoins and the limits of a peg. The name "stablecoin" describes a value target, but does not replace examining the mechanism intended to support it.

What changed on interest and reward programmes

In the final text, the OCC removed a proposed presumption concerning payment arrangements through affiliates and third parties. Such a presumption would have started from the position that certain arrangements constituted a violation unless shown otherwise. Removing it changes the assessment approach, but does not automatically approve reward programmes.

The rules make clear that the regulator retains authority to act against evasion of the yield prohibition. It will examine arrangements through issuer applications and ongoing supervision. A reward programme operating before the Act was enacted does not, by itself, make it permissible.

For readers seeing an offer of "earnings on your balance", the central question remains who pays, for what and under which arrangement. A marketing label such as bonus does not answer those questions. The distinction between the issuer and the platform displaying the balance also matters: they may be different entities with different obligations to users. Publication of the rule alone does not mean a particular programme has been examined and approved.

Two business days for redemption, subject to when counting begins

The rules retain a basic two-business-day redemption framework. The clock depends on receipt of the customer's request, completion of required onboarding and satisfaction of necessary legal conditions. The regulator also clarifies that completion for this purpose refers to the issuer processing and initiating the transfer, or crediting an appropriate account on its own books, not necessarily when funds reach an external bank.

This illustrates why "redemption within two days" is not a promise that money will appear in every account within two days of a tap in an app. Intermediaries and payment systems may stand between the user and issuer. Reading service terms remains part of understanding the process, even under a binding supervisory framework.

What remains unfinished, and what it means for readers in Israel

In its separate announcement, the OCC said provisions concerning the Bank Secrecy Act, anti-money laundering and sanctions would be addressed through separate rulemaking in coordination with the Treasury Department. It also said the start date for accepting and processing applications would be announced separately. Finalising this rule does not mean every implementation stage across all authorities is complete.

For readers in Israel, the potential relevance lies in the service chain: who issues the coin, where the issuer is supervised, who holds the balance and from whom redemption can be requested. A US change may affect an international provider also used in Israel. This possibility follows from the service structure; it is not a claim that every Israeli holder gains a new right or that a particular service will change its terms.

A payment card based on a stablecoin balance is not the issuer itself either. The separation between the coin layer and the payment layer is explained in the article on Coinbase and Marqeta's plan for cards funded by stablecoin balances. At each layer, the responsible entity and the action it undertakes must be identified.

The central development is that the OCC framework now has final text and a defined timetable. Understanding its effect on a particular product requires connecting the rules' scope with the issuer's identity and service terms. A regulatory headline is the starting point for that examination, not a substitute for it.